Talk:Antony Flew/Archive 1


 * Archive 1 of Talk:Antony Flew - posts from December 2004 through August 2006.

Older talk
I find it amusing that there is such a strong desire/need among certain people to constantly support the fact that Anthony Flew now believes in God with it not being the God of Christianity. His belief or disbelief in the God of Christianity is entirely irrelevant. It is either stated to not let this occurrence inflate the heads of Christians or to not let it cause panic in the minds of atheists. Since I believe that most God believing Christians will believe in their God regardless of how Flew feels on the matter (considering the fact they maintained that belief while he was a committed atheist); I therefore feel that the latter is the ulterior reason this occurs. Regardless of how one feels on this, it would be bordering on inane to assume that Flew's recent change would be a step further away from the Christian's notion of God. If one is willing to admit that there exists such a hightened degree of complexity in something so seemingly simple that there must be a God to account for this vast amount of information; why would it be the case that that God who was concerned enough to 'create' such complexity is not concerned enough to care about the creation as a whole? timL  18:25, December 28 2004 (UTC)

This one sentence should be fact-checked before it goes back into the page:

Flew now believes that God does exist, with the aid of recent finding in [DNA]] research.

Charles Matthews 20:07, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

from an interview:

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369 - Omegatron

In regards to these Christian websites that were posting on-line about Flew converting to Christianity can we have some proof of this or some links to these pages? I've heard this sentiment stated time and time again, but I still have yet to find one of those articles myself; an article (by Christians) stating that Flew has converted to Christianity. Are you trying to build up a straw man? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.53.206.141 (talk • contribs).


 * Many people online refer to "rumors that he had converted to christianity" a few years back. I can't find any, either, even in newsgroups. but several people refer to them.  Maybe they are just rumors of rumors...  The article I pointed to says that they occurred in 2001 and 2003. - Omegatron 16:14, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * I wrote to the author of that article, and he says:


 * "The rumors appeared (to my knowledge) in email lists and email grapevines. That was so long ago I can't recall exactly where, but everyone started calling and emailing me about it, so apparently someone was saying this, and a heck of a lot of people all over the country and beyond were hearing it. How it could have spread so widely as to result in so much diverse inquiry escapes me--I suppose it may have been all over bulletin boards of the time, but who knows. You might try some Google-like searches of a wayback site (there are a few like that where old web pages are archived) to see where it was discussed in bulletin boards, but most of that data will be lost (even BBS's themselves rarely keep archives beyond a year). At the very least you should be able to find discussions of the Flew article from 2001.


 * Either way, as far as I know, there was no official publication, online or print, making the assertion in either of those two years. I just kept being asked about it by all manner of people from all over the world (India, New Zealand, England, and the U.S. are the only nationalities I recall inquiring). How they all came across it, I don't know. I just went straight to the source--it didn't really matter to me at the time where it originated, nor did I think I could find out with my limited resources."


 * No one's trying to make anything up. - Omegatron 02:55, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

I am somewhat concerned about that being stated as well. I have performed some google searches that might direct me to sites where Christian (or Muslim) organizations are saying that Flew converted to their conception of God; however, those searches have not been successful.


 * He also said (I don't know if he realizes he can add his comments directly to this page by pressing the edit button.):


 * "'I have performed some google searches that might direct me to sites where Christian (or Muslim) organizations are saying that Flew converted to their conception of God; however, those searches have not been successful.'


 * This is true--no one has gone on record claiming that Flew has become a Christian, for example--at least not to my knowledge.


 * But Flew's conversion to deism is still being touted by theists as proving their case now on national television (Faith Under Fire on PAX, the episode with Moreland and Tabash, aired a month or two ago), in peer reviewed print publications (the Habermas-Flew interview in Philosophia Christi, already available online) and national press releases (various ones have appeared in print, including the Seattle Times, and these are also available online)."


 * - Omegatron 20:47, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * --Yes, but Omegatron, part of the theists claim is involved in the deists understanding of God. If the deist wants to state that God does exist, and that God's interaction with creation is only that God created it (to whatever extent that maybe), then that notion is enveloped in part of the theist's understanding of God.  The theist elborates on that by saying that God is concerned with its creation.  So Flew moving from atheism to deism is very significant for a theist, because it involves part of the theist's understanding of God as well.  It might not prove their case, but I certainly feel it provides support to one of their main tenants in their conception of a creator.  I'm confused as to why one would be shocked that theist's are making comments about this turn of events, as well as their perceived implications of it.TimL


 * His version of deism explicitly denies the involvement of god in creation, so theism is not an "elaboration" on it. Apparently...  His claims about conversion to deism or theism seem rather shaky.  I see quotes that sound like both.  The article linked too says he basically isn't sure yet, as of December 2004.  Regardless, he clearly states that his idea of a god or prime mover is not related at all to the God of the Christians or Muslims.  I added direct quotes and toned it down a little.  Is that neutral enough?  - Omegatron 01:09, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

---Thanks for the clarification on that. I was interpreting deism as the notion of a God creating the universe and then abandoning it; not being concerned with the creation and not revealing its nature to its creation either. Taking the 1st part of that (God creating the universe) and then viewing theism as having that as one of its main foundational beliefs. I can understand how he might be concerned if some people with their own special interests are extrapolating this to a more theistically centered idea of God. However, I still feel the jump from atheism to deism would hold some significance for a theist.TimL---

If one person in particular is trying to bend the reality of Flew's "conversion" to adhere to their notion of God, that's one thing; but that "one thing" is not very interesting. Numerous people do that with various other topics not related to theistic or atheist mindsets. But I don't think it is appropriate for stigma to befall the Muslim or the Christian faith practices as a whole because of an individual's brash comments. And to reiterate, Antony Flew's recent change (whether deism or nominal theism) is certainly a large step away from atheism and a step closer towards the ideas of a personal, concern God.TimL

I apologize if I've misunderstood any of this discussion or misattribute anything. The formatting here is somewhat difficult to follow.

I believe that the sentence

Flew now believes that God does exist, with the aid of recent finding in DNA research

is perhaps too strong. But it doesn't much matter. Flew certainly has rejected atheism at least in part because he believes there can be no natrualistic explanation of the origin from DNA of a reproducing organism.

I think it's interesting that the media seems to report at least annually for the past few years that Flew has rejected atheism. But he has, there's not much about that. What's unclear is what it is he believes now. Unfortunately, he hasn't provided much help in figuring that out.

I have not seen anyone suggest that Flew has converted to Christianity, but there are people like this guy who has blogged quite a bit about Flew's "conversion," the suggestion being that deism is the first step towards accepting Christ as one's personal savior.

It's not. And there are many forms of deism - Spinoza's, for example - which are utterly incompatible with any form of theism. There's no reason to say that Flew's conversion to deism should give any comfort to theists. Or there wouldn't be if Flew himself hadn't been so confused about what it is he believes. ---What's more incompatible with any form of theism? His notion of deism (deism defined as an entity that created the universe..something which theists also believe) or his previous atheism (negating the existence of God).  Flew, stating that there is a God to make sense of the abundance of information at a microscopic level (indicating that purely naturalistic means can't account for this information) seems to be pretty much in-line (at least in respects to this one issue) with how theists feel.  So please explain again why his conversion to deism should give no comfort to theists.--- The discussion with Habermas is just sad. Flew in one breath denies the possibility of immanence and in the next says that he is open to divine revelation.

I haven't yet found anything by Flew in which he discusses what you'd naturally think he'd discuss, like the usual (his own!) objections to the teleological and cosmological arguments.

Really, all we know of what Flew now believes is that he is no longer an atheist but is not a Christian.

Rosquet 00:49, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment
I find this article about Flew very very very light in substance pertaining to the man himself and more about his recent position. Can we have some input on why should we should give more weight to Flew's position than that of Pamela Anderson... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.165.240.5 (talk • contribs).

POV Pushing
Sorry for the top-posting, but we are suffering from vandalism. User 66.91.226.222 is a con man named Jason Gastrich, a self-described internet evangelist, and he's the one changing everything from NPOV on Flew to GPOV (Gastrich Point of View.)

He's been reverted twice now, and this is turning into a revert war. Harvestdancer


 * A few points. It is confusing that you haven't timestamped this - please use the four tildes method to get an automatic timed signature. Please do not call POV edits 'vandalism': we have policy against POV, which is perfectly adequate. Please note that most Wikipedians respect anonymity of those who post here. And finally, having added a POV dispute tag, please could you get specific about what you object to in the current page. Tagging should not be used in a generalised, threatening way, but to flag changes needed that cannot be brought to consensus through extended talk page discussion. Charles Matthews 15:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I took out the NPOV warning. This is an upcoming revert war though, and will need to be dealt with.  I don't object to the current page.  I object to the twice modified page I, and someone else, reverted from.  You're right, NPOV isn't the correct term to use, but a revert war is coming between everyone else and 66.91.226.222.  As for the anonymity, this is part of a personal crusade on the part of 66.91.226.222, who even included a link to his webpage about Flew (Left Atheism, Now Theist! God Exists!)  This is more than just POV. Harvestdancer 16:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * We have an Assume Good Faith policy. OK, policy is too strong a word. We have a prejudice against assuming the worst of anyone, or that the situation is apocalyptic. WP likes to think of itself as open for business 24/7, come one come all. Charles Matthews 16:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree in general. The problem is that I am acquainted with this fellow outside of Wikipedia. Harvestdancer 17:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikiquette says argue facts not personalities, amongst other things good to bear in mind. Charles Matthews 21:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, I agree in general. Now that you've had to revert him, just like two others, what is your opinion? Harvestdancer 15:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If you look, I didn't revert. I edited what was there, and put back a version of something cut. My opinion is that the article needs the other aspects developed. After all, unless it is better established that Flew's opinions on religion have some standing, this is all a storm in a teacup. Perhaps you could help. Charles Matthews 15:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you beginning to see his pattern of POV pushing? As you are both an Admin and a major mover of this page, I ask of you to put some protection on from user 66.91.226.222 Jason Gastrich. Harvestdancer 04:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Page protection is an extreme measure. As a page participant I am anyway barred from doing that. I don't like the 'supporter of theism' phrase; I preferred it when neither atheism nor theism were mentioned in the lead, because I am still not clear what legitimately can be said on Flew and theism. Some of what is in the Current section may check out, as may what has been added about the forthcoming 'Prometheus' book.


 * I think it comes down to this: WP can't clarify Flew's position more than he himself clarifies it. I added 35+ book titles, which gives some perspective. The atheism debates go back to the mid-1980s, it seems.


 * I would ask everyone working on this page to try to collaborate in getting a good treatment. Charles Matthews 10:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV Pushing Part 2 - Anonymous 66 responds
Hello Charles. I appreciate you enforcing Wiki's rules and teaching Harvestdancer the difference between a POV and vandalism. As you can imagine, I don't appreciate the weighty charges.


 * I know far better than you the difference between POV and vandalism. The first few times you add POV into a NPOV article, it's POV.  The fifth or sixth time, it's vandalism..  It's too bad you think your vandalism is mere POV.Harvestdancer 01:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've edited the parts about internet rumors because they are silly. This isn't a tabloid. All it takes is for two people to come up with some nonsense and then you have a rumor. I hardly think an encyclopedia is the place for rumors.

I put a link to anthonyflew.com because it has relevant information. It also has a link to an important interview with Dr. Gary Habermas. Habermas was a debate opponent of Flew's and played a role in his conversion to theism. This interview was conducted after his faith.


 * I haven't been able to read www.anthonyflew.com, for some reason; I'll see if it is cached by Google. Apart from that, I don't accept the reverts. If that link is relevant as you say, I'll support its inclusion. Charles Matthews 10:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't get it immediately, but presumably with discussion about Gary Habermas is what you mean. A suggestion: why not write us something about Habermas? Charles Matthews 10:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You can get onto http://www.anthonyflew.com, this domain was registered by a for profit evangelical Christian organisation and simply redirects to the that organisation's webpages, it has nothing what-so-ever to with Antony Flew and is no more than blatant cybersquatting. 81.2.94.107 11:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * User 66.91.226.222, also known as Jason Gastrich, your cybersquating page on Flew, with little to no factual content, you link to it from here solely to drive up your hit counter. And for accuracy's sake he's a DEIST not a THEIST.   There are also three questions slightly lower on this page that you should answer as they are your most common POV pushing vandalizations.  Harvestdancer 04:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Controversy as a Whole
It seems that User 66 Jason Gastrich has quit the controversy. I would like to move that this article have the "controversial" tag removed.Harvestdancer 17:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed, take it down. What's the story with Gastrich? FeloniousMonk 17:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I did take it down a month after I posted that he quit. He quit the day this article was locked.  I could describe Gastrich's psychology, but that would not be relevant to this discussion.  Instead you can do a google search. Google of Gastrich Harvestdancer 18:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

anthonyflew.com - point 4
Haven't done much with Wikis before so if I blundered in doing the edit, apologies all around. But below is what I was trying to accomplish.

I removed the link to "anthonyflew.com" as it's a redirect to a "ministry" site. Which wouldn't be a problem if the site contained additional information about Flew. However, the site only contains two things. One is a brief excerpt of the AP story that touched off the current "flap" about Flew. The other is a link to the Gary Habermas interview with Flew which has already been cited in the Wiki article.

I added, instead, a link to the full AP article via ABC news ("Famous Atheist Now Believes in God"). Seems to me a cite to the full article is superior to a short excerpt.

The "anthonyflew.com" site is also overtly pushing a particular POV, inducing people to "begin surfing this Christian site." The point of the "Anthony Flew" page seems to be to assert the claim that a former atheist now "confirms" god exists rather than to provide information about Flew.

--Mark K. Bilbo 13:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * There's no wikipedia prohibition on including links to external sites with overt (or covert for that matter) agendas or biases. Indeed, many articles do so, often grouped by slant. FeloniousMonk 15:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * True, many times opinion pieces that contain relevant or useful information are linked to. OTOH, opinion articles that contain no useful information and are inserted for the purpose of increasing traffic to a commercial website, well, that is just spam.  Is there a policy on Spam? Harvestdancer 18:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think for us spam is mainly a 'weed' type definition: link seeking prominence by being in an irrelevant place. Many people do remove frankly commercial links, but mainly if they are overtly selling something. I'm not too worried about clickthroughs, myself, nor about POV on sites linked to. When I finally saw it, it seemed mainly to lead to a PDF of obvious relevance; which could therefore be linked to direct, as an improvement. Charles Matthews 19:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * This is Point 4, and let's face it. Wikipedia often links to baised sites.  Look at the listings for political parties, and there is a link to that party's page, and that is definitely biased.  Those links are also informative.  Sometimes you need to link to a biased site to get relevant information.


 * However, the site in question is not such a site. All pertinent information is already covered elsewhere in unbiased sites.  This is a commercial link intended to drive up traffic to the site.  Plus the site's description "Left Atheism, now a Theist! God exists!" is questionable, and I say this as a theist.  First, his opinion doesn't prove that God exists, and second the conclusion is far from undisputed. Harvestdancer 15:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More information has been added to http://anthonyflew.com. If there were any doubt about its importance or relevance before, there should be no doubt, now.


 * I looked. You are right about no doubt as to it's importance and relevance.  It still doesn't have enough to be on the page. Harvestdancer 00:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, for the sake of Wikipedia, Harvestdancer has no authority in this matter. I'll wait for an admin to reply, though.


 * Wrong, Gastrich. All Wikipedia users are authorities in this matter, as all Wikipedia users edit Wikipedia.  This disucssion is here to provide a consensus, not get an admin to decide.  There are at least two people saying that the page is not relevant, and one (you) saying it is.  So far it is against you, and you need to make a case for the page.


 * That's right, you acutally need to argue your point, make a case, try to convince people. Simply saying it's relevant isn't enough, and simply saying I'm not relevant isn't going to win you any friends.  You actually need to argue your point.


 * And haven't you gone long enough without getting a Wikipedia account? That way you can sign your posts.  They're free, so there is nothing to stop you.Harvestdancer 14:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Given the rule "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)." Wouldn't this page, in addition to adding nothing new, be breaking all those rules?


 * That's part of the argument, user 128. I'm willing to listen to a counter-argument, though.  If Gastrich could explain WHY his page is relevant and should be included, then the concensus would maybe turn in his favor.
 * Harvestdancer 16:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * But the additions are really just additional links to the AP story and the Habermas interview, both of which are already linked here in the Flew article. There doesn't appear to be any additional information about Flew that cannot be gained via the direct links. I'm not clear on the reasoning for including the link to this page. Mark K. Bilbo 12:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deist, Theist, and Advocacy/Support
Granted he went from Atheism to deism, but is he an ADVOCATE or SUPPORTER (in the sense used here) of deism? No. He's merely a deist, unlike when he was an atheist. There's a difference between holding a position, and actually advocating or supporting (in the sense used here) a position. Harvestdancer 01:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Flew's actual position is becoming rather confusing. In his recent exchange with Richard Carrier, he's backed off what he previously identified as the major basis for his change. That being his belief there were "no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction." He's also apparently repudiated Gerald Schroeder (I wonder if the article here should be updated as it mentions how Flew was previously impressed with Schroeder).


 * I'm not sure it can be said he advocates or supports anything. He's backed away from the basis of this "shift" in his thinking but seems to be keeping the "shift." Which he then characterizes as a "more radical form of unbelief." I'm not at all clear what he means by that as deism is something of a belief. I'm not sure Flew knows what Flew believes. At least not at this point.


 * See Jan 2005 "Update" at http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369


 * --Mark K. Bilbo 13:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * In that case, I think we can agree to "former supporter of atheism" and can agree to leave out "(now a supporter of theism)" and leave out "(now a supporter of deism)" Harvestdancer 15:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can't the poor old duffer be forgiven for being hoodwinked in his old age by psuedoscience he cannot comprehend. I'm not saying he's senile but.. OK I am saying he's senile. The Philosophy of Grandpa Simpson doesn't get a page why should he? 83.70.30.82 01:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The former "Current" subsection
This section largely spoon fed the reader and made several hasty conclusions drawn from the "Fox video" which was actually an AP interview article. I've rolled the subsection in to section above it and wikified the text for NPOV. FeloniousMonk 15:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks. Anyone who has specific problems with that edit should thrash them out in talk here, rather than reverting. Charles Matthews 20:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * In particular bear in mind Three-revert rule. Charles Matthews 21:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * In an interview last month Flew states that he still stands by his landmark argument for atheism. "We must follow the argument wherever it leads," he said. "I've never thought I knew that there was no God. I merely thought there is no sufficient reason that there is."


 * Scientific evidence also now leads him to believe in an disinterested god like that which Aristotle or Thomas Jefferson spoke of, he said. Yet, when asked whether or not he has kept up with the most recent science and theology, Flew responded: "Certainly not."


 * See also:


 * I think the most we can say with any certainty of Flew at this time is that he may be a little muddled --or at eighty-something, dotty. FeloniousMonk 15:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Charles, the web site is working just fine. If you still have a problem, you can see Google's cache. I'll add the link with the assumption that you can see the site and discern its importance.

Google's cache: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:0INgTERW3qIJ:www.anthonyflew.com/+antony+flew+theist&hl=en

I'm going to add some information to the Flew entry. FOX News did a fine piece on him and it will accompany the current entry.

Addressing the specific points raised above
Someone (who needs to remember to sign their posts) raised four points to be addressed some points, as to why specific content was rewritten.

My responses as to why that content needed wikification follows:

Point number 1 is a quote given without context, so it is inappropriate to use it to reinforce a conclusion being made by the author, not Flew.

Points number 2 & 3 both draw the same hasty conclusion and then go on to spoon feed it to the reader. They make a definitive proclamation about Flew's beliefs based on one article, ignoring the fact that in subsequent interviews Flew denies that he's abandoned the tenets of his work, the Presumption of Atheism. The conclusion that he has is contradicted by subsequent evidence and hence, hasty. Again in the same month in another interview, Flew contradicted the statements quoted in the cited Fox/AP article and flat out denied that he had abandoned atheism. The contradicting statements in the latter interview prevent any definitive conclusions to be drawn from the former, the AP/Fox article. The link cited in point number 4 is to site with a very definite POV and agenda. Nothing wrong with that, but the text used here should describe the site, not promote it or its message.

Again, clearly Flew contradicts himself in his public statements of the last 6 months. Hence, the only conclusion that can be made which is supported by these statements is that Flew has contradicted himself publicly. The article should present the substance of his various quotes in their context and let the reader make their own conclusions about what Flew does or doesn't believe. FeloniousMonk 01:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. The posting to which you reply is now off this page, as part of a rationalisation and removal of personal attacks, which are not permitted(No Personal Attacks).


 * Extracting from that the four points, they related to:


 * NUMBER 1 EDIT:


 * Prometheus specializes in skeptical thought, but if his belief upsets people, well "that's too bad," Flew said. "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."


 * NUMBER 2 EDIT:


 * After being a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century, Flew has changed his mind. He now believes in God —— more or less —— based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released on December 9, 2004. 


 * NUMBER 3 EDIT:


 * At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Anthony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England. 


 * NUMBER 4 EDIT:


 * AnthonyFlew.com - Anthony (Antony) Flew - Left Atheism, Now Theist! God Exists!, 


 * Charles Matthews 05:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Felonious Monk and 4 Points
Rebuttal to Felonious Monk’s Point 1:

All of the quotes on the entry are without context. However, if we only keep the ones on the page, it gives a peculiar and incomplete picture of Anthony Flew and it surely gives nothing current about him.

Flew’s viewpoint has changed so much lately that giving data from 2001 and 2003 instead of having any section for “Current” viewpoint/articles/reports is absurd.


 * Except that the AP story from 9 Dec is not the most current on the matter. Ending with materials from that story and calling them "current" is not really correct. The HNN interview is from 22 Dec and some of the Carrier correspondence is from 29 Dec. The Beverley article is also post-AP story though he does not indicate the date of his discussion with Flew. And I'm not getting your meaning on "context." The reader has the links to the actual interviews and those interviews actually provide the "context" for the article here. Mark K. Bilbo 12:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rebuttal to Felonious Monk’s Points 2 and 3:

They aren’t “hasty conclusions.” They should be considered sound reporting as they came from the Associated Press and Fox News. Why aren’t the quotes from the atheist web sites considered “hasty conclusions”? Furthermore, can we even trust the quotes and alleged interviews from the atheist web sites more than we can the articles from the Associated Press and Fox News? I should think not.

The issue of contradictory statements from Flew has come up. You claim that he is obviously making them. Well, there is another option. One of the news sources may be lying.


 * But the charge of "may be lying" could be leveled at any source, leaving us with no article at all. Do you have evidence of a source being deceptive? Mark K. Bilbo 12:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response to Felonious Monk’s Point 4:

The text may describe the athonyflew.com web site.


 * Sorry, but I find none of this reasoning uncompelling. Specifically, your response in defense of my criticism of points 2 and 3; I have to question your ability to recognize a hasty conclusion as well as a straw man -- no one has questioned the veracity of the reporting, that's not the objection. Proclaiming Flew is unequivocally a believer based on public statements he immediately recants or contradicts is by definition a hasty conclusion. The point remains. FeloniousMonk 14:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * There's no doubt that Anthony Flew believes in God. To assert otherwise is foolishness.  To abstain from adding those quotes from the Associated Press is also foolishness.  In fact, it implies an agenda.


 * I submit my case to an unbiased admin; not simply to FeloniousMonk or Harvestdancer.


 * You forget, that Admin's aren't the rulers and deciders of content. All Wiki users edit Wiki pages.  That's the nature of Wiki.  We're trying to build a concensus, that's the point of the discussion page, so that we can build a better main article page.  You do need to talk to me.  I know you don't like it, since I dare to disagree with you and am therefore wrong about everything.


 * As I said in the section specifically devoted to Point 4, the consensus is leaning against this page being included. You, therefore, need to actually make an argument FOR your page.  Don't tell us that it's relevant, tell us why it's relevant.


 * And get a Wikipedia account so you can sign your edits on the discussion page.Harvestdancer 14:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments and quibbles
Edits 1, 2, and 3

Well, you know, professional media also can make mistakes, can have biases, and have at times been caught fabricating. "May be lying" could be leveled at any source, leaving us with nothing but a blank page. I would think something more substantial would be necessary in arguing against a source.

And the story isn't a Fox News story per se. Fox, like ABC and others, picked up the AP story of 9 Dec 2004. The upshot being that edits one through three are from a single source. Labeling material from the one story of 9 Dec 2004 as "current" (as edits 2 and 3 were) is a tad on the misleading side. For example, the HNN interview is dated 22 Dec 2004 and was done in response to the breaking of the AP story and, hence, is more "current."

I think the ordering of FeloniousMonk's last edit follows the chronology well.

Edit 5

(Continuing on with the numbering)

I wanted to raise one that I don't see on the current discussion page. The sentence:

"He made it clear, however, that he did not yet have faith in the God of Abraham."

I find this one problematic. "Not yet" implies we know something of Flew's future and naming a specific god concept implies a destination. But we don't know where Flew is going nor what his future holds. He could revert to atheism, stay a deist, move to Tibet and study with the Dahli Lama, or just get tired of us all, go tend to his garden, and never speak to any of us again.

Edit 6

While I'm at it, I'm also unclear on the reasoning behind the deletion of "The Presumption of Atheism" from the Works section. The essay is one of his works and a rather well known one at that. Though according to Amazon.com, the essay was published as part of a collection as early as 1976 rather than 1984. The 1984 date comes from the essay's inclusion in "God Freedom and Immorality: A Critical Analysis".

Mark K. Bilbo


 * To deal just with this one point - nothing should be attributed to it. I compiled a list of Flew's works from the Abebooks online site, which I find is in general a good way. The initial list of 30 or more books I added did not have it, since it wasn't for sale there. I added it later. That's it. Charles Matthews 13:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I see, then this was just an artifact of the reverts rather than being an actual "deletion." Chalk up "edit 6" to my misunderstanding. Mark K. Bilbo 16:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Minor "references" changes
Moved things a bit closer to APA style as discussed here: Cite_sources. Also, the AP story in the text was cited at Fox but cited at ABC in the "References" section. Regularized the "External links" a bit. Did leave the direct links to the referenced articles in the text but they're still "numbered" which I read is not recommended. Mark K. Bilbo 20:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Removed quote & passage

 * Also in December, 2004, Flew spoke at a symposium sponsored by the Institute for Metascientific Research, stating "What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together. The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of intelligence." [5]

I removed the above passage and quote for this reason: The original story on this quote first written published by Jonathan Witt, a fellow of the Discovery Institute in the Seattle Times. The quote was presented by Witt in the article without any context but with plenty of assumptions. The DI has a long history of misquoting others and makes it a matter of policy to do so in furtherance their social and political agenda. That being the case, without the quote's full context, it cannot be said to support the implied point that Flew now accepts ID, believes God exists, etc. FeloniousMonk 1 July 2005 03:07 (UTC)

Relevant info FM reverted
Begin Edit

A 9 December, 2004 Associated Press article quotes Flew as having changed his mind. He stated for the interview that now believes that a deity or a "super-intelligence" is "the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature" based on his understanding of the scientific evidence. (Ostling, 2004)  In another interview that month he specifically acknowledged intelligent design as being key to his change in belief:
 * "I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries... I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it... It seems that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (Habermas, 2004)

Yet in an interview conducted by Duncan Crary of Humanist Network News published 22 December, 2004, Flew, when asked if he still stands by his landmark argument for atheism, The Presumption of Atheism, said:


 * "Oh yes. Yes I think so. That's how you should deal with any question which is seriously controversial. You don't wonder whether the evidence is something that other people know much more (about) than you do. But in a serious controversy this is the proper way to proceed." "We must follow the argument wherever it leads..." "I've never thought I knew that there was no God. I merely thought there is no sufficient reason that there is. We must follow the argument wherever it leads," he said. "I've never thought I knew that there was no God. I merely thought there is no sufficient reason that there is." (Crary, 2004)

End Edit

FM, what is inaccurate about these quotations? Which wikipedia guideline did I break with my edit? David Bergan 21:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I have two issues with the content you're attempting to add:
 * 1) The reference source offered as support lacks credibility:
 * It's a letter that states the content is for an interview that will appear in some future issue (Winter 2005). Why not just cite the actual article, which presumably has undergone some fact-checking. FeloniousMonk 21:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "Philosophia Christi" is a publication of the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Philosophia Christi engages exclusively in Christian apologetics, so has an interest in spinning this, such as claiming Flew as a convert and exaggerating its import, which they do both ("we are pleased to offer up the definitive interview on this breaking story of global interest")
 * The cited letter lacks any pretense of objectivity, but rushes to tout Flew's alleged conversion, and "the persuasive power of the arguments modern theists have been using to challenge atheistic naturalism."
 * 2)ID, and whether Flew believes it or not is not particularly relevant here.
 * FeloniousMonk 21:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's the link to the site the PDF is taken from: FeloniousMonk 21:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

(I've re-orged your responses to make it easier to follow the thread. Also, splitting others comments with your own is considered bad form - FeloniousMonk)
 * 1a. "Winter 2005" is a typo, which is supposed to be "Winter 2004". If you compare your link and my link (which was derived from your link), you'll see that it is supposed to be the same text.  And it actually was in the print version of Winter 2004.
 * 1b. But the quotes are from Flew's own mouth. In context.  There's no spin when you take a guy's words and frame them exactly as he meant them.  Moreover it says, "The following interview took place in early 2004 and was subsequently modified by both participants throughout the year." which means that Flew gave explicit consent to how the interview was printed.  Therefore, there cannot be any spin that Flew does not endorse.
 * 1c. Yes, the point of that article was to discuss Flew's conversion. There was no hiding about that.  Flew agreed to it and edited it himself.
 * 2. On the contrary, the man had a significant change in worldview and he credits ID specifically. How much more relevant does it get?  Anyone hearing that he changed his views would certainly like to know why... from Flew's own mouth.  David Bergan 21:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * If they can't even get the date right, what can we expect for accuracy in their transcription of Flew's statements? And that brings us to spin: What we see is what they offer us; the article says nothing about it being unedited or verbatim. Your assuming too much, I think. Flew's conversion? Conversion to what? Catholicism? Protestantism? His own statements in the article do not back that up (HABERMAS: Tony, you recently told me that you have come to believe in the existence of God. Would you comment on that? FLEW: Well, I don’t believe in the God of any revelatory system, although I am open to that.) "Any revelatory system" = religion. Flew's never said he's converted to anything, including in your article here. Both the article and you are over-stating Flew's views to claim he's "converted." Further, we have no idea to what degree Flew may have edited this article himself; we only have that the editors implied that he did. Nor do we know to what degree he actually holds the views it implies and you assume. Again, we are being asked to assume that Flew's comments in the article are unedited.


 * As far as ID's relevancy here, that's your reading of it. I don't read it the same way at all. Maybe I'm too circumspect about the claims of ID proponents, but it's for good reason; they have a long, well-established history of rushing to claim any support for ID they can and in turn often end up over-stating support for their views. Again, this article is from a well-known and admitted Christian apologist publication, and we are being asked to assume it's unbiased and not over-reaching. The article's intro implies that Flew is no longer an atheist ("His change of mind is significant news, not only about his personal journey, but also about the persuasive power of the arguments modern theists have been using to challenge atheistic naturalism."), yet neither it nor he explicitly states he believes in a God in the Christian sense. One more thing, the article was published 9 Dec. 2004. The statements it offers as support that Flew is now a Christian theist are directly contradicted by Flew's subsequent statements in a later interview dated 22 Dec. 2004 given to Duncan Crary (see the article and ). This takes us back to where we were yesterday; that Flew's own statements are contradictory. Since December, 2004 Flew to my knowledge has not spoken definitively any more about what he believes. If you can produce more recent credible, neutral quotes that support your claim, I'd be happy to consider them. FeloniousMonk 23:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the bad form of commenting. Thanks for re-organizing.


 * (1) When I spoke of conversion, I meant that Flew "converted" from atheism to deism. I have not read anywhere that he converted to any specific religion or denomination, and my edit never said anything of the like.  This interview does not contradict the other one.  In both he speaks of being a deist like Thomas Jefferson, and not a theist.  He talks about his opinions toward Islam and Christianity and Methodism, but also makes it clear that he is not worshipping with any of them.


 * (2) Do you realize that you are holding this specific reference up to extraordinary standards? If you can show me a link where Flew says that this article misrepresents or misquotes him, I'll recant.  But to assume it is misquoting is ridiculous.  You made similar remarks regarding the quote in the above section here at the talk page, where again there wasn't any "proof" that it was a biased reference... you just put it under the sweeping generalization that since the DI had a hand in it, therefore it can't be trusted.


 * (3) If you read the reference, you will see that the reason Flew has changed to deism is precisely because of the latest books on Intelligent Design. He doesn't try to hide this.  He says the term Intelligent Design specifically.  He was an atheist in the 50s when the evidence didn't seem to favor the existence of God, and now he thinks the evidence supports deism.  I have another reference (that I am still verifying before inserting) where he says that it was specifically Darwin's Black Box that he found remarkable.  (Also he remarks that Dembski's math in The Design Inference was over his head.)  To speak of his change in beliefs and not tell the reader why he changed his beliefs is a serious crime of misinformation.  Give credit where credit is due. David Bergan 00:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Your claim Flew changed to deism because of the latest books on Intelligent Design was overtaken by events. Flew on 19 October 2004 recanted most of the assertions he made in his earlier Habermas interview in a letter to Richard Carrier written by Flew. On 29 December 2004 in another letter to Carrier, Flew backtracked on his recant and admitted some confusion. This is all detailed in the link provided in the article and here. Thus the most that the article can claim is that Flew's made some contradictory statements, which it does. You and your quote and passage are adding no new information, but instead are trying to expand on Flew's first statements (to Habermas), ignoring his later statements (to Carrier). The sum of your edit is that ID is the cause of Flew's "conversion," information that Flew subsequently recanted. Read the complete exchange between Flew and Carrier. As I said, we are still back at the same place we were prior to your edit here. FeloniousMonk 18:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Name
It seems Flew's name is actually Antony. All the book covers on Amazon (even the ones listed as being by "Anthony Flew") show that spelling, that's the way it's spelled on the Freedom Association website, and so on. Given that there are only a couple of dozen pages linking to Ant[h]ony Flew, I propose to move the text here to Antony Flew, and have Anthony Flew as the redirect page. Are there any objections to this? --Andrew Norman 15:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Requested move
Anthony Flew -> Antony Flew - the latter is the correct spelling of his name, but at the moment the correct spelling is a redirect page pointing to the incorrect spelling! Because of recent controversy, it is important that the talk page (which includes an archived section) is also moved. --Andrew Norman 15:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~ 


 * Support, obviously. --  ajn (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support FeloniousMonk 15:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support David Bergan 18:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

I have edited the archive link so that it includes the full path. So that if the page and talk page are moved the archive page can still be found. Philip Baird Shearer 11:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

FM's Rewrite
Good job with the rewrite. I still think it is relevant to make a wikilink to Intelligent Design, but I'm holding off making edits until my copy of "God and Philosophy" arrives from amazon. David Bergan 15:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Strange structure of quotes in the atheist/deist section.
When I first read this article I got a different impression than when I read it more carefully and checked out the sources for different statements, which included more statement of Flew which contradicted the impression that probably was intended by the (before me) latest editor of that passage.

I don't understand why quotes from Flew that are prior to the article in Phil Christi are refered to as something which "contradicts" his views expressed in Phil Christi? The very reason of the article in Phil Christi is the changed views of Flew. Secondly in the article (prior to my recent changes) it was purported as something which indicates that Flew still is an atheist, the simple fact that he still believes atheism to be the "default position" - when in the same article he once again confirms his belief in a deity.

That passage was un-necessary unclear and seemed to be structured in a way which should give the impression of Flew still being an atheist, which is not the case.

In the letter to Carrier, which is quoted in the article Flew furthermore answers to the question: if he would assert that God exist, that his God is not a theistic God, but a deistic God. So Flews statement that he would not make that assertion, is because the God he refers to is not at theistic God but a deistic God - and does in itself not at all say that Flew would be more inclined to atheism than to deism - on the contrary he rearticulates his belief in a deity of Jefferson's sort.

Sources missing for quotes. And a discussion of the structure of atheism/deism section.
I think it would be good with a section for quotes missing source-reference.

Like this one: In an another letter to Carrier of 29 December 2004 Flew went on to retract his statement "a deity or a 'super-intelligence'" is "the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature." "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction."

Where is the reference?

By the way, many references that we're alive and kicking yesterday to the humaniststudies websites are dead ends today. http://www.humaniststudies.org/enews/index.html?id=172&syn=true#n1

Which is refered to in reference 5 and 6 (and maybe more).

It may be that their website is a bit shaky.


 * The whole atheism-deism section needs to be more NPOV, too. Statements like "Flew said X, proving that he now believes A,B,C" are not appropriate - I don't see how it follows from the quote given that Flew does not personally believe in natural explanations for the evolution of life, for example.  --  ajn (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I must say that the repeated references to Flews view that one should hold atheism as a default-position is something which doesn't say anything about wether he himself is an atheist, and that case should not be made. Especially not when he in those same interviews restates his deism.
 * I have added that after every reference to Flew's "atheism is default"-position, because it was earlier purported as something which should contradict Flews claims to be a deist. That would be misleading.


 * Please sign comments. I think the section is now a fairly clear statement of what he has said to various people and when, and reflects his view.  Judging by the interviews and texts cited, he has basically fallen for "intelligent design", but rejects any conclusion beyond the existence of an entity which created the universe and may have guided evolution.  So he certainly hasn't embraced Jesus Christ as his personal saviour, or anything like that - his deism is a very far distance from the God posited by Christianity or his bete noir, Islam.  He certainly, and quite explicitly, denies that his God has any moral preferences or implications.  I don't think it's at all necessary to keep inserting "by the way, he's a deist" into every paragraph - the article should cite his own statements, with references, and leave it at that as far as possible.  --  ajn (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The Carrier article is the killer - Flew admits to frequent memory loss, and seems to have got his information about the scientific evidence for God from two sources, Dawkins (anti) and Schroeder (pro), so if there's something raised by Schroeder which Dawkins hasn't explicitly countered recently, Flew assumes there is no counter-argument. Since Schroeder and Dawkins are largely operating in different areas (physics and biology), and Schroeder's views are non-mainstream (to put it kindly), that means Flew has based his "recantation" on some very wobbly evidence.  --  ajn (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If Flew is a deist it goes without saying that he is not a christian. That must be out of the point. Yesterday the article seemed to be composed as to raise doubt if Flew actually were a deist - the quotes supporting this impression were from articles in which Flew stated and restated he was a deist. I thought it would be misleading only to quote thoose sayings which allegedly contradicted his deistic views - when he himself confirmed them in that article. By the way, I dont get the impression that Dawkins is his only "anti" source - only that it originally was. He know recognizes that there are persons who has developed "presentable naturalistic explanations" which doesn't mean, of course, that he himself submits to them. In fact he isn't, since he still claims to be a deist. I heard Flew speak a couple of weeks ago at a C S Lewis-conference, by the way.(www.cslewis.org) It was an informal interviewsession with Habermas and Flew. He restated his deism there.


 * I think the article is better today, but may need some improvements. --


 * In the intro to God and Philosophy his comments on design found in life are made without Dawkins references. He quotes other researchers in proto-biology and says that biologists do seem to have a possible naturalistic explanation, if only a tenative one at this point.  Then he comments that the results of this line of inquiry certainly have to (also) be taken into consideration for the successor to his book.  I think he originally relied on Dawkins for his info against intelligent design, but once he went public, others gave him non-Dawkins sources for the info he wanted.


 * Personally, I lean toward ID, but I can't let my POV cloud the facts around Flew. David Bergan 21:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why it is considered as "question-raising" that Flew, as deist, makes an distinction between his God and the Christian God! He has been saying that the whole time, and makes that VERY clear the first thing he says in the interview in Philosphia Christi. It puzzles me that that should be puzzling for anyone, that Flew did not change his mind on that matter.

Final verdict
This link quotes Flew as saying, "Anyone who should happen to want to know what I myself now believe will have to wait until the publication, promised for early 2005, by Prometheus of Amherst, NY of the final edition of my God and Philosophy with a new introduction of it as ‘an historical relic’." And so I held off until my copy of the book came in the mail. I've scrutinized the intro and find no definitive answer to the question of Flew's current belief. In fact, the new introduction (which the editor said was re-written 4 times, after a substantial peer-review each time) basically avoids the question altogether. For the most part it is written in the form: "The successor book to God and Philosophy will have to take into consideration A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J." It seriously lists ten "new" concepts, ideas, and scientific advances that happened since the original edition in 1966.
 * A novel definition of "God" by Richard Swinburne
 * The Church of England's change in doctrine on the eternal punishment of Hell
 * The question of whether time began with the one big bang
 * The question of multiple universes
 * The fine-tuning argument
 * The question of whether there is a naturalistic account for the development of living matter from non-living matter
 * The question of whether there is a naturalistic account for non-reproducing living matter developing into a living creature capable of reproduction
 * The book The Wonder of the World: A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God by Roy Abraham Varghese (and something about a concept of an Intelligent Orderer in that book)
 * An extension of an Aristotelian/Deist concept of God that can be reached through natural theology, which was developed by David Conway
 * The radically new and comprehensive case for the existence of the Christian God by Swinburne in the book Is There a God?.

But each one is addressed in a very detached third-person perspective. Nowhere does he make a first-person "I believe" statement and so we only have a record of the things he finds thought-provoking rather than a list of the things that persuades him one way or the other.

And so... FeloniousMonk, you were right. Thanks for your patience. Contrary to the interviews and such in December 2004, Flew isn't very clear-cut on his position. I wanted to give the gist of the new introduction so that everyone had an idea what it said without having to buy the book. If anyone thinks any of this is article-worthy, drop me a line and I can give you direct quotes. David Bergan 02:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've incorporated this information. --  ajn (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes
Firstly, for the record: I'm an atheist, I think "intelligent design" is junk science, I'm broadly in sympathy with what I know of Flew's philosophy (which seems to me to be derived from the English empirical tradition), and I'm not keen on Flew's brand of far-right "libertarianism". But it seems to me that some of the changes made to this article are to reflect editors' personal views, rather than Flew's, which ought to be the issue. We have a few sources here:
 * 1) Flew's 2001 rebuttal of the rumours of conversion
 * 2) The early-late 2004 Flew / Habermas "interview", "modified by both participants throughout the year".
 * 3) Flew's letter  in the Aug/Sep 2004 issue of Philosophy Now
 * 4) Flew's "review" (actually a couple of paragraphs of pre-publication comment) of Varghese's The Wonder of the World.
 * 5) Carrier's article on Flew  which dates from before the publication of the Flew/Habermas interview but now also includes letters written by Flew in late December.
 * 6) The late 2004 Crary article, again including input from Flew.
 * 7) Flew's new introduction to Philosophy and Religion.

3 can really be disregarded - Flew hints that his view has changed, but doesn't say anything clearly. 4 likewise, because it says nothing about Flew's personal belief, simply restating well-worn philosophical arguments about natural theology.

Flew states explicitly in the Habermas article that he is now a deist. I think in view of the revision process, we can take this as an accurate and considered reflection of his views in late 2004. The Carrier article doesn't, as far as I can see, contain anything to suggest that Flew had recanted his deism by the 29th of December, though it does make it clear that he's now less certain about the "evidence" that has convinced him so far. Likewise the Crary article - it's clear that he was still a deist at this point. The introduction to P&R, which I haven't seen, apparently contains no retraction, and User:Chrysostomos says he attended a conference recently where Flew restated his deism.

So, I think it's absolutely clear that Flew is a deist. I think that's a silly intellectual position, I don't think Flew has any good reason to be a deist, and I think he's been led to that position by an obvious ignorance of science, but that's his position. The article ought to reflect Flew's view, not what I or anyone else thinks about it. So:


 * 1) and some believe he has been persuaded - these "some" clearly include Flew himself.  Insinuating that he might not have been persuaded is not an accurate reflection of Flew's current position, according to any of the evidence cited so far.
 * 2) Flew seems to have agreed to this title - unless someone has evidence that this may be false, Flew did agree to the title according to the article.  Granted, the website has an obvious angle, but Biola University seems to be reputable and I think we have to assume they would not lie about this.
 * 3) I've moved one of the quotes, which was explicitly about the Jeffersonian deism which Flew says he accepts.
 * 4) This has lead to questions over exactly what it is that Flew believes and why.  - there are certainly questions over why, but it's pretty clear what he believes (and, as the article makes clear, it isn't anything most religious believers would mean by "God").  I've removed this sentence.
 * 5) Thus, we got a record of things which Flew thinks should be taken seriously when considering the existence of God from a philosophical perspective, rather than an argument for his own conclusion. This is a personal statement from the viewpoint of the editor, and is already covered by the earlier statement that Flew refrains from personally commenting on the "ten points".  I've incorporated the text, slightly.

-- ajn (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm a Christian, and I think ID is "treasure" science. But I agree with everything you said and the changes you made.  I'm not sure why FeloniousMonk thinks that Flew's position is unclear regarding deism.  If he had recanted, he should have said as much in the intro to God and Philosophy.
 * What are your thoughts regarding the inclusion of an ID link? You put a link in once, and so did I   .  An anonymous user also tried putting up legit ID friendly material  this summer.


 * Each time the link(s) was removed by FeloniousMonk with the following reasons cited:
 * "rm. assumption and spoon feeding. Flew has never explicitly advocated Intelligent Design."
 * "rv. pro-ID propaganda. ID is not relevent here. Also, “Philosophia Christi” the journal of the Evangelical Philosophical Society is not exactly a neutral source."
 * "rm ID bit. Noting ID out of the range of justifications given by Flew is untoward. Flew also later retracted the ID endorsement."
 * "rm quote taken out of context. Jonathan Witt of the Discovery Institute wrote the original article, and the DI has a history of misquoting others in support of ID"


 * The evidence for ID's impact on Flew is found throughout all the sources.
 * "However, I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it."
 * Scientific evidence now leads him to believe in an disinterested god like that which Aristotle or Thomas Jefferson spoke of, he said.
 * "But the evidential situation of natural (as opposed to revealed) theology has been transformed in the more than fifty years since Watson and Crick won the Nobel Prize for their discovery of the double helix structure of DNA. It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism."
 * "A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England."
 * Flew's tentative, mechanistic Deism is not based on any logical proofs, but solely on physical, scientific evidence, or the lack thereof, and is therefore subject to change with more information
 * Flew told AP that his current ideas had some similarity with those of U.S. "intelligent design" theorists, who believe the complexity of life points to an intelligent source of life, rather than the random and natural processes posited by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
 * [After a lengthy quote from Darwin] "This left a problem for his scientific successors, or rather two problems, that he himself apparently believed to be insoluble. These problems were, first, to provide a naturalistic account of the development of living things from nonliving matter, and then of the development from living matter unable to reproduce itself to living creatures able to reproduce themselves genetically.  I am myself delighted to be assured by biological-scientist friends that protobiologists are now well able to produce theories of evolution of the first living matter and that several of these theories are consistent with all the so-far-confirmed scientific evidence. (God and Philosophy, 2005 introduction, pg. 11)


 * The last quote certainly is different than the others. But note how Flew says "protobiologists are now well able to produce theories of evolution of the first living matter" and says nothing about current theories of getting from that step to the "living creatures able to reproduce themselves genetically."  Anyway, enough splitting straw.  Either way, it is definitive that ID has played a major role in his thinking about God... and I don't know how FM can think that ID is irrelevant to this discussion when virtually every link on the topic brings it out.  This merits at least a mere wikilink.  David Bergan 15:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't object to mention of ID, because that's pretty obviously one of the factors in Flew's arriving at his current, rather daft, views. I also think, however, that there is a very large gap between the way Flew's "conversion" is being touted by evangelical Christians as "proof" that ID has the power to convince even hardened atheists, and the reality of Flew's deism.  The article possibly needs to make more mention of what Flew's "God" doesn't involve (i.e. almost all of the attributes assigned to God by any of the world's major religions, especially Christianity).  --  ajn (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Cool. I just thought an ID wikilink was approriate like the one you had added.  For certain Flew is not a Christian.  Nor does he believe in any kind of afterlife.  (He seems to be more adamant about his afterlife convictions.)  He had some nice things to say about Jesus in the Habermas interview, and some harsh ones toward Islam.  But he is still unconvinced of the resurrection and all other miracles and revelation.  Anyway, the deism section seems accurate and complete as is, except for overlooking an ID link.  But if we really wanted to, we could split up this section into a "chain of events" section and a "Flew's current beliefs" section.  Then in the latter we could outline and reference all his beliefs.  *sigh*  But that seems like a lot of effort for something that's very minor.  If readers want more info on his beliefs they can always click the links and read for themselves.  David Bergan 16:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the article gives a pretty fair picture now. I may have some comments later on the repeated emphasis that Flew "is not a Christian or a moslem" since I think it is enough to clarify that once. The very term "deism" is a concept which is in stark contrast to the Christian view of God). It also seems a bit odd add that Flew isn´t a christian and that he also doesn't believe in the resurrection. (Is it the suspicion that Flew might be the first non-christian to hold the doctrine of Christianity to be true that is to be eliminated by that comment. Just kidding there, but I think the point may be clear anyway.) User:Chrysostomos

Citing ID in this article
In response to DavidBergen's insistence on citing Flew as a recent convert to ID (his own self-admitted bias toward ID being completely irrelevant to that I'm sure) and to his amazement at what he portrays as my thinking that ID is irrelevant to this article, I'll say the following:

Yes, in the Habermas interview Flew endorsed ID when he claimed "a deity or a 'super-intelligence' [is] the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature." No one disputes that he said that.

BUT, two months later Flew said "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction." to Richard Carrier. Flew blamed his error on Richard Dawkins, and compounded his first error again in misunderstanding what Dawkins had published.

So, considering that Flew's endorsement of ID is almost immediately retracted, there's no reason to cite that Flew found ID compelling, if even for a short time.

Leading ID proponents have a historical pattern of overstating and inflating their ranks by claiming even the merest hint of sympathy toward ID as an endorsement. Wikipedia articles are not the place for minor ID proponents to grind their ideological axes. There is no compelling reason to accommodate in this article those whose contributions revolve solely around promoting ID as a concept. FeloniousMonk 22:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to argue either way, because it is a trivial point. But I would just like to reiterate that this should be an article about Flew and his beliefs, not a battleground for pro/anti ID debate (I'm very firmly in the anti camp, like you).  --  ajn (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm neither pro- nor anti- ID. What I'm firmly against is POV content and those who'd treat wikipedia as a vehicle for promoting their particular pet cause. FeloniousMonk 07:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm neither pro nor anti ID, either. I'm pro-truth, and if ID is bunk, it's bunk.  But if the ontological argument gets a wikilink from Flew (when he is repulsed by it), then an Intelligent Design wikilink is very reasonable considering it was much more significant in his thoughts... even though he ended up being unconvinced.  David Bergan 15:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Both you and I know that your statement above is disingenuous at best. You're contributions to the 'pedia have been almost exclusively pro-ID, as even a cursory review of your contribution list proves. Though I see you have removed your cite of ID from your Talk page recently, I see you're now offering to assist other pro-ID editors . Do I need to provide the edit diffs to show that your claim to being not pro-ID is disingenuous, or are you going to be honest with us and retract this claim? FeloniousMonk 16:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Why are you opposing a wikilink to ID when there is a link to the ontological argument? David Bergan 21:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Bakewell interview
The interview with Joan Bakewell is well worth reading, if only as a portrait of a man who now admits there is no evidence for his belief, but clings to it nonetheless. I think it's clear from the interview why the new introduction to his book is so non-committal - "Well the really long introduction which I wrote for this book did express my own incredulity about this [DNA having a natural origin]. The new one that will go in points to what has in fact been done, and indicates that my incredulity has stopped in the face of the evidence." -- ajn (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Levity from a lurker
Argument: "No atheist believes in the existence of God" Reply: "But Antony Flew, a world renowned Atheist, says he can accept a form of Deism" Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true atheist believes in the existence of God" --One Salient Oversight 11:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

New reference
Antony flew is also known recently for his conversion to Deism. This was a significant event, one that made worldwide news. Many people never knew antony flew at all until his conversion was made public. This fact is very appropriate to the definition so it was included. Marshill 20:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Marshill. I'm thinking that the article you cite is incorrectly dated.  All the material from it seems like the exact same stuff as the flurry of reports in December 2004.  And God and Philosophy was already published.  I have it at home.  We already included info from the new introduction in this article.


 * I'm going to verify that my hunch is right on your news reference, but assuming it is, I'll then take it down. Thanks for the effort and cooperation, but the info would be unnecessary and outdated, if it's from 12/9/04.  Kindly, David Bergan 21:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

hi! i beat you to it. it was outdated, i took it down...although it was dated as Dec 2005, i saw too that it didn't seem right once I realized "wait a minute, his book already IS published!" doh! so because the information was not current, it did not deserve mentioning. thank you. Marshill

I'm wondering if the word "conversion" is the right word in the definition. While I do believe its relevant and appropriate to make mention of deism in the definition, maybe a better word here? Marshill 21:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm... "conversion" sort of has the right implications. Say, for example, you were pro-choice, but after a lengthy discussion, I persuaded you to be pro-life.  Would that be considered a conversion?  Or a mere persuasion?  His thinking (or life) isn't really "converted" to a new thinking (or life)... at least not as much as when a pagan in ancient Rome became a Christian.  But I'm struggling at finding a more suitable word.  David Bergan 21:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

In regards to ID, I think that there is no clear answer as Flew doesn't seem to (as of yet) have made his position on this concrete. We need to make sure the article does slant imply Flew embracing or rejecting ID until Flew himself makes his stance irrefutable. I want the article to simply state Flew's beliefs, and if tomorrow Flew comes out and says he worships purple chickens, thats what I want to go in there. Obviously I am being over the top here, but my point is I want this article to state what FLEWS positions are rather than ours or what we want his positions to be. Flew's name, while already very popular amongst philosopher's circles, gained much wider noteriety among the mainstream populace with his profession of deism, hence making it appropriate to place in the definition. Marshill


 * This is what I gather from his new intro and the BBC interview. Both from about March of last year.
 * Flew is a deist
 * He is not a Christian or Muslim.
 * He does not believe in an afterlife.
 * He was persuaded to deism mostly by the fine-tuned universe arguments.
 * He at first thought arguments for ID (involvement in biological life) had some merit, but biology friends assured him that they have theoretical solutions for all the ID claims. So he currently does not hold stock in ID (apart from the fine-tuned arguments... which some consider ID and some don't).
 * He respects and likes CS Lewis. Always had.  But doesn't go down the line to Christianity with him.  David Bergan (timestamp accidently deleted)

Um, sorry, but no. Claiming Flew is a deist is far, far overreaching. In fact, it contradicts his own statements and he makes no claim in God and Philosophy, published a year and half after the Habermas interview. Also, he's stated he does not support ID/FTU a number times, all of which have been dealt with here before and have been the article for months for anyone who bothers reading it. FeloniousMonk 05:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * My bad. I forgot that he distanced himself from both FTU and ID in the BBC interview, I only remembered ID.  The new intro to God and Philosophy says nothing either way about his personal beliefs except that he no longer holds to ID for proto-evolution.  Everything else is laid out in a detached 3rd person "the next guy to write about this has to take into account" format.


 * Let's take some quotes from the BBC interview, since that is the most recent source we have (right?) and note their implications
 * [Flew] "What I was converted to was the existence of an Aristotelian God, and Aristotle's God had no interest in human affairs at all."—Flew is a deist
 * [Flew] "[CS Lewis] was I think the most effective Christian apologist for certainly the latter part of the twentieth century. One can always find Lewis's books in the campus bookstores of most of the campuses which I ever visited."—Flew respects CS Lewis
 * [Q] "And what you believe, what you argue in the text that I have read is that there is no explanation for how that life began from no life." [Flew] "Yah. Well the really long introduction which I wrote for this book did express my own incredulity about this. The new one that will go in points to what has in fact been done, and indicates that my incredulity has stopped in the face of the evidence."—Flew used to be persuaded along ID origin-of-life lines, but not anymore
 * [Q] "You're not going back on your statement though, about now believing in something called God?" [Flew] "Oh no. But I think it would be useful to everyone if I quoted a quotation from Einstein, who might be regarded as the Newton of the twentieth century in his importance. 'Certain it is a conviction akin to a religious feeling of the rationality or intelligibility of the world which lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. This firm belief, a belief bound up with the deep feeling in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.' Well that seems to be an opinion which I would, which I could've added to the four statements from Einstein always indicating that he didn't believe this God was interested in human behaviour in the original book."—Yep, a deist
 * [Q] "Another argument you put forward to support your change of view is the 'fine tuning' argument. And the argument goes that the facts of the physics of the universe are so exactly tuned that they, if they were only the tiniest bit different, one way or another, then none of the existing created world could've come about." [Flew] "No, I've never reached myself - I've known about the 'fine tuning' article and in this new introduction, I point out the existence of this argument and say only that I don't think it proves anything but that it is entirely reasonable for people who already have a belief in a creating God to regard this as confirming evidence. And it's a point of argument which I think is very important - to see that what is reasonable for people to do in the face of new evidence depends on what they previously had good reason to believe."—Flew considers FTU worthy of mention, but never was convinced of it himself
 * [Q] "So the fine tuning argument is one that you acknowledge as appropriate for people who are already believers, but not one that you yourself would use." [Flew] "No. No I, I've never thought the, the fine tuning argument was any sort of proof."—Boy was I wrong about Flew and the FTU argument
 * [Q] "So...let me get this right - you now believe that there was a prime, intelligent mover behind the world as it exists." [Flew] "I think so. But I'm, y'know, I'm not going over big about this. I just think 'OK well, allowing this and let's call it Deism.' Y'know, there's been far and away more excitement about this than there ought to be, simply because people insist on interpreting atheism in this peculiar way."—Flew uses the D-word himself
 * [Q] "So you reject the Christian concept of God?" [Flew] "I follow what has become the universally accepted definition by Richard Swinburne of the entire English-speaking philosophical world which includes a very large part of the philosophical world."—Flew uses the G-word
 * [Q] "So you don't believe in life after death?" [Flew] "Certainly not, no. If I believed in life er... I would get very worried indeed, because..."—Flew doesn't believe in an afterlife


 * And now for the quote that is in the article:
 * [Q] "And certainly in America where you've been to lecture..." [Flew] "Oh America, this is a very real phenomenon - oh yes. Part of Bush's second election success is due to this. And the unbelievers are absolutely furious, not believing that anyone with any intelligence could be anything but a Democratic voter." [Q] "What view do you take of what is happening in America - where presumably you're being hailed now as ... one of them?" [Flew] "Well, too bad (laughs). I'm not 'one of them'."—Flew isn't a Republican ("them" is vague, but it seems to refer to voters for Bush.)


 * So except for the slip about Flew giving prior credibility to FTU, it seems that the BBC interview backed up all my points. Personally, I don't see any changes that need to be made to the current version of the article, unless someone feels that any of these points need to be made clearer.  Kind regards, David Bergan 06:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd only take issue with one point there - "one of them" clearly refers to evangelical revivalism and religious passion:
 * Q But, but surely we're witnessing a great revival. I mean the Evangelical Church in Britain is thriving, is acquiring new devotees, the churches are full. There is a strong Evangelical movement - indeed it is likely to swamp the established Church of England in many ways. So, and there is a lot of religious passion going on...
 * A Oh yes, that's so.
 * Q ...would you believe? And certainly in America where you've been to lecture...
 * ...and so on. It's perhaps not immediately apparent to people unfamiliar with British politics, but the list of organisations at the end of the biography section is a roll-call of the far-right fringes of the Conservative party - the groups who felt during the eighties that Thatcher was a wet liberal who made too many compromises, and Reagan was soft on communism.  Flew is extremely politically conservative in UK terms, and probably in US terms too, and while he may object to Bush on religious grounds I can't see him objecting to most of the Republican programme, unless he thinks that Bush doesn't go far enough.  --ajn (talk) 10:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That makes sense, I can see that. Thanks for the info.  David Bergan 20:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

that may be your opinion, Felonius, but I'd rather let flew speak for himself, rather than someone else. Flew is not an atheist. Its as simple as that. this truth should be reflected on the article. The definition is dishonest as it misleads someone into believing flew to be an atheist, which he isn't. The definition needs an update. It has been, but you are deleting other people's content. Please don't just revert articles, as wiki requests that we enhance content, rather than summarily removing it. see: revert  Marshill

Deism in the intro (let's do it right this time).
I'd like to propose the following paragraph as a replacement for the intro sentence.


 * Professor Antony Garrard Newton Flew (born February 11 1923) is a British philosopher. Though he recently (December 2004) became a deist, he is known principally as a supporter of libertarianism and atheism.

I know with the recent Gastrich wars this may be a sensitive subject, but I'm hoping we can consider the paragraph on its own merits. (And I'm also hoping I don't get flamed to a crispy critter for suggesting it. :D ) Justin Eiler 01:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Accurate and balanced. I approve. David Bergan 06:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it explains why so much of the article is given up to that relatively trivial belief - I'd suggest "Known principally as a staunch supporter of libertarianism and atheism, controversy arose in late 2004 when he announced a belief in deism." Or something like that - it could do with polishing.  He was fairly important in Oxford-school philosophy (I've just read Ernest Gellner's Words and Things, and Flew is probably the most-mentioned name after Wittgenstein, Ryle and Austin).  The article puts more weight on the deism than it deserves in the context of Flew's whole career, and the reason it's unbalanced is because of the recent controversy.  Flew doesn't seem to think the "conversion" is a big deal at all, it's other people's interpretations which have caused the fuss, and I think that needs to be mentioned too.  --ajn (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll certainly agree that the "conversion" is quite overblown in the main article, but this gives a balanced and accurate view of the events without ... well, to be perfectly blunt, without giving an "excuse" for folks to try to twist the facts. The user who made the suggestion originally (User:Aristotle1990) makes a more complete argument for the change on his talk page, but fundamentally even though it was a minor change of view in Flew's eyes, folks are going to make a big deal of it. I thought it was better to have it clearly stated that Flew was a "sort-of" Deist than have folks running around saying "Antony Flew converted, and Wikipedia says so." Justin Eiler 14:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletions of collegues
The removal of the names of those Flew was associated with denies the article the fuller detail of his life. Sussexman 07:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody's objecting to the inclusion of mention of Flew's associates. As I say above, the story of his involvement with various fringe groups on the far right needs to be expanded.  What is a problem is your spamming details of one dinner fifteen years ago, on this article and others, as if that particular meal is somehow significant in itself.  It was an event which I suspect even a full-length biography of Flew would perhaps mention as a footnote - he'll have attended hundreds of such dinners throughout his career.  --ajn (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Sussexman was the chef?Homey 14:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's all very Pooterish. Flew was involved with Alfred Sherman in various political organisations, and it would be interesting to have the details of that relationship, but saying that they both attended a dinner with the Lord and Lady Mayoress at the Mansion House is pointless trivia.  --ajn (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do Atheists hate this guy?
Why are they so intolerant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.0.221 (talk • contribs)


 * Why do you make a point to attack atheists at every possible opportunity? This attitude seems to push an agenda rather than conform to a NPOV. Sign your comments. Star Ghost 23:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't, but every atheist that converts to a passive form of Deism, let alone Christianity or another Monotheistic Faith, is instantly villified, laughed at and run down by extremist atheists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.0.221 (talk • contribs)


 * Well, at least now you said extremist. That's less of a generalization, since before you just said atheists. The question still remains, why do you make a point to attack atheists in this article, is there an actual point you'd like to contribute? Or do you legitimately don't know, and are unaware that such questions should belong in the reference desk. Also, your claim that extremist atheists vilify and laugh about converts are unsourced and I dispute them, and they seem to not be NPOV. Again, I ask of you, sign your comments with four tildes like this ~ . Star Ghost 00:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But well! What do you know, you do make a point to attack atheists, as seen here . So I suggest you quit trying to say atheists are intolerant and quit trolling altoghether. Star Ghost 01:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What about the libertarianism?
From our first paragraph: "Though he in December 2004 expressed deist opinions, he is known principally as a supporter of libertarianism and atheism."

If libertarianism is not in fact a big part of the Flew story, this sentence should be changed. If he is indeed "known principally" for his support of libertarianism (as well as atheism), shouldn't that be an important part of the article?

The reader following up the libertarian lead will, I grant, find some association with something called the Libertarian Alliance, but also this: "Flew has a long history of involvement in conservative politics. In the late 1980s he became an active vice-president of the Western Goals Institute, a pressure group opposed to immigration and free trade, and supportive of apartheid." "Conservative" is not at all synonymous with "libertarian." Opposition to immigration and free trade, and support for apartheid, are not libertarian positions; most right-wing libertarians would oppose all three positions (with perhaps some reservations about unrestricted immigration into existing welfare states), most left-wing libertarians would oppose at least the first and third positions, and would probably qualify any opposition they had to the second. I know of no flavor of even self-defined libertarianism that would embrace all three positions, or even two out of three. They would generally be considered anti-libertarian positions. So what gives?

Has Flew modified early reactionary and conservative views to a more mainstream libertariansim? I have no idea, and am not attempting to inject original research here. I merely speak for the reader who never heard of Flew before encountering this article, is given some expectation that his alleged libertarianism will be a prominent part of the article, and has that expectation completely thwarted. 66.241.73.241 08:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)